Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Examination of Apollo Moon photographs (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Moon landing conspiracy theories. Consensus not to keep this article. Redirecting instead of deleting is necessary to provide attribution for the merger.  Sandstein  13:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Examination of Apollo Moon photographs
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article has had issues related to POV, lack of reliable sources, use of original research, and a lack of wikipedia-like style for at least a decade. These issues have not been fixed. All useful and wikipedia-relevant content has already been merged into Moon landing conspiracy theories. The fact that this article exists at all on wikipedia reduces the overall reputation of the wiki. All relevant photographs already exist on the other page, all relevant citations already exist there, etc. I went ahead and merged all remaining wiki-appropriate material into Moon landing conspiracy theories. Every unique piece of information that remains is either WP:OR or WP:POV in this editor's opinion. The existence of this article as a unique page sidelines it and fosters more and more conspiratorial discussion and POV and less and less verifiability, reliable-source usage, and wiki-appropriate style. The former AfD was kept mainly because of POV-editors (many of whom have now been banned) and issues with article length in the aforementioned merged article. Those issues have largely been dealt with in the intervening years. Because the merge already basically happened and this independent article is just a duplication of the other information with additional POV and OR, I think it's in a weird limbo in that regard. A new AfD would be more prudent. I'm very happy to point to specific passages in this article that meet OR or POV criteria if requested.

The main issue as I see it is that this article reads as exactly what it has been for over a decade: two different POVs edit-warring over small tiny discrepancies. Every time a new conspiracy theory is invented about the moon landing, it shows up on this page, sans reliable sources or evidence of notability. This sort of thing belongs on a forum deep in the darkweb, not here on the wiki. Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 19:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions.  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions.  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions.  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - along with Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings and any other forks that may exist. We should not be giving this much coverage to WP:FRINGE therories. The main Moon landing conspiracy theories article should cover the entire topic and should not go into excessive detail by presenting and debunking every piece of "evidence". –dlthewave ☎ 20:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Agree for the most part, but I actually think Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings serves a vital public service. Third-party evidence of the landings is perhaps the best way to convince fringe theorists of the fringe nature of their ideas. Placing it all on one page as a list is also a great use of an encyclopedic format. The third-party article also doesn't suffer from many of the POV and RS and OR issues that the AfD'd article is rampant with. As Reagan later said to Gorbachev, "доверяй, но проверяй." Trust but verify. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 21:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The useful sourced content should be merged into Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings and Moon landing conspiracy theories, as applicable. Brandmeistertalk  21:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge/Delete - I agree with the notion that having multiple articles covering essentially the same general topic need to be put together. Issues of reliable sources and original research should instead be dealt with on the talk page as ordinary talk page discussion, although I should note there are published reliable sources which could cover at least some of those issues on the proposed page can be found with a little bit of effort from noted astrophysicists and others who have done both "popular" and scholarly reviews of these topics as well.  This page does not need to be in a separate article.  ---Robert Horning (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment One reason that this was split off is that Article size suggest that an article be no larger than about 50-60KB. This one is now 299KB.  But perhaps those guidelines are out of date.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To me, it just seems that 50-60KB is an antiquated limit. As Facebook stretches internet across the globe via satellite, and Google weaves Fiber into every home in 20+ municipalities, who really has a dial-up connection anymore? That was the original reasoning for limits like these. Further, the article size page itself quotes the existence of 2,000+ articles with sizes above 200KB. It stands to reason that an article such as Moon landing conspiracy theories with a wealth of images is a perfect exemption to an informal rule like this. Especially when one considers the collateral damage of a separate article -- less attention from editors, repetition of so much information, and a plethora of editorial issues. Plus, as I say above, the other articles already duplicate all the wiki-appropriate content! There really isn't any important detail left to be merged in, not that I could see. The AfD'd article just expounds in more detail about minute tiny conspiracy theories with non-notable back-and-forth argumentation and quite a bit of repetition. After a careful read, I couldn't find any more un-merged info than I and other editor's had already prudently merged into the main article, where that controversial content will get the attention it deserves. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 04:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I think that one of the reasons at the time was that some browsers couldn't handle > 64KB. Surely that isn't an issue now.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per excellent nom. -Roxy, in the middle . wooF 10:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Deletion will just be the reversion of an ill-advised split. SpinningSpark 15:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Still a needless WP:FORK of WP:FRINGE theories. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do you want to end the discussion because of SNOWBALL? The reasons for deletion are correct.  We did a lot of work on this article, when conspiracy buffs would put in something they saw or heard somewhere and we would do a lot of work to track down photos which show what they were talking about, etc.  But I don't think this article has a snowball's chance of surviving.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Those photographs will still survive and live on in the other articles mentioned! They serve a vital public service and I think Moon landing conspiracy theories in particular serves a vital public service. What a great article. Are there any photographs in particular that you think are worth keeping that also haven't been merged into that article? Photographs that will be orphaned by this? -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 18:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if all of the information is there *I haven't checked). For instance, one of the claims of fake photos is that the reticules aren't centered on the famous photo of Buzz Aldrin on the Moon.  It counters that by showing the original, unedited photo.  Those photos are both in the other article, but I don't know if all of the claims, etc, are in there.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Moon landing conspiracy theories. That effectively ends us up where a selective merge would have, which is what has happened here for all practical purposes. In any case, as a long-standing article the final state should not be a redlink. VQuakr (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect Originally this article served to contain arguments from moon hoax proponents that were getting out of control. But it looks like the main article is containing the content well.  If someone can make sure that the article doesn't contain anything that is missing from Moon landing conspiracy theories then a redirect ought to be fine. Algr (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator. Relevant content has already been merged and I suspect the title of this article is searchable on pageviews because it appears in a 'parent' article. Mramoeba (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect – The article still contains a wider range of interesting material than what was merged so far. On first reading, it does not sound like giving much credence to fringe theories, rather it provides a sound rebuttal of every claim. Future editors could mine the history of this article to improve the main conspiracy page, any time claims are re-introduced there. Finally, article history by itself can be viewed as a historical perspective about the evolution of Moon landing conspiracy theories, their defense, rebuttal, and public perception. For the sake of historians, this is worth preserving in the Wikipedian record. — JFG talk 11:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – I get the feeling that most users who voted "Delete" would also be comfortable with a Redirect. Is that the case? This would also allow us to slowly ensure that all relevant content from this article is indeed used on the main one, and wouldn't directly orphan any left behind images right away. To me, it sounds like a great compromise.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 15:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I would not support a redirect. I voted delete for a reason. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Unfortunately we need to have articles on conspiracy theories (a variety of fake news), but one per theory is ample. We therefore do not need this.  No objection to a merger or redirect, but we need to avoid overnburdening the target with excess detail.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.